Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:29, 21 May 2016

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

Abbatai

Abbatai is hereby topic banned from all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, for 30 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Abbatai

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OptimusView (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[1] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [2].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ([3]).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [4]

Discussion concerning Abbatai

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Abbatai

14:20, 1 May 2016

The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.

And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [5] and [6] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding latest accusations, what about this: Abbatai ate my homework or Abbatai causes global warming. --Abbatai 20:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused to see how one revert of me maliciously brought here and there started an anti-Abbatai campaign by pro-Armenian users. @Étienne Dolet if you think my edits were wrong you are welcomed to discuss it on talk page. However you seem you even did not read what I wrote there. What you are doing here is not constructive at all with being very willing to have me blocked. I find what you are doing here quite threatening since simply you accuse me with socking without any IP investigation and calling admins to ban me just because you do not like my edits. Can you please explain what was wrong changing this [7]. The section is "Caucasus" but Central Asian Turkic legions stated there. So it was completely wrong. I added Azerbaijani and Georgian legions along with Armenian legion which were the collaborators from Caucasus. And here [8] instead of picture from Turkistan I added Armenian soldiers which were native to Caucasus. Next time please read carefully what you are reporting. I hope you have basic geography knowledge that Turkistan is not in Caucasus. Thanks Abbatai 22:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally @Étienne Dolet seems s/he has an obsession with me. Trying to dilute the topic and extend this thread by several baseless accusations [9] [10] and reverts[11] [12]. I demand closure of the case because as I explained above I feel threatened by him or her bringing unrelated things here and accuse me every means possible. Abbatai 00:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly as @Étienne Dolet could not support his latest groundless accusation S/he came with something that happened earlier. Just wondering how long this will last. Abbatai 01:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OptimusView

Abbatai still continues editwarring as an IP [13]. OptimusView (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EtienneDolet

I'm also concerned about the socking. In addition to the IP OptimusView has aforementioned, I ran into a similar case at the Defense of Van (1915). Abbatai apparently lives in Istanbul. An IP out of Istanbul, similar to the one OptimusView has shown, reverted on Abbatai's behalf (IP edit and Abattai's edit). This also appears to be the case at Drastamat Kanayan ([14] and [15]) and also at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims ([16] and [17]). Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith, Seraphimblade and Dennis Brown: Abbatai continues to push a very strong POV here: [18] and [19]. He has removed anything related to Turks and replaced it with Armenians in relation to this controversial episode in history. Even as talks of banning him are ongoing, the user seems to have no remorse and is playing with fire. I find 1 month too little for such behavior. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Another pattern of disruption I have stumbled upon was at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. Abbatai added a large chunk of questionable material about how Armenians massacred Azerbaijanis in an article dedicated to Ottomans (how he makes such a correlation between Azeris and Ottomans is beyond me). After the filing of this AE report on May 1, Abbatai's sock (as explained in my first comment) then arrived and edit-warred to maintain its inclusion ([20] and [21]). This is a pattern we see in almost every article he has been involved with in the AA2 topic area. Abbatai, who apparently lives in Istanbul, adds controversial material to an article. The AE report is launched. Abbatai edits covertly with his Istanbul IP as a smokescreen while the investigation into his behavior continues at arbitration. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abbatai

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 30 days is probably appropriate. There was a clear violation, but it wasn't particularly severe and doesn't seem like there was disruptive intent behind it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Creagh

Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Miles Creagh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mo ainm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Miles Creagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

12 May 2016 revert 1 removal of content
12 May 2016 revert 2 removal of content

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is involved in a dispute about the official status of the Flag of Northern Ireland and if it is used to represent Northern Ireland or if the Union Flag is used, the article has seen a slow edit war which while not breaching the 1RR restriction it certainly stretching it waiting just long enough so as to avoid sanctions. As can be seen in the diffs the editor removed that flag was not official and then removed that the Union Flag is the only flag used officially in Northern Ireland. I asked the editor to self revert to avoid this process but they refused here and said they will wait till after this request is completed in some way to negate this request. The whole crux of the dispute as I said is that Ulster Banner has no official status and that the Union Flag is the only official flag and mentions of both of these things where removed by Miles, a compromise was agreed which was the addition of a sentence proposed by User:Eckerslike the edit was made and then Miles removed more thus ending the proposed compromise.

I wont be surprised if one of the dormant accounts come along and revert I already asked for admin assistance on the page looks like a sock farm because if it looks like a duck...

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

Discussion concerning Miles Creagh

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Miles Creagh

It's too bad that Mo ainm didn't just provide me the diffs when I asked him repeatedly to do so on my talk page[22]. Now I know what he's talking about! I would argue that the second diff he provides is not in fact a revert, as it removes no content whatsoever from the article. Eckerslike had just inserted this [23] new sentence that we had all three of us (Mo ainm, Eckerslike and myself) discussed and agreed on here[24], as part of a good-faith effort to move a long-running dispute on a difficult topic towards a balanced conclusion. The new sentence Eckerslike inserted as agreed at the start of the second paragraph of the lead was "There has been no flag in use by the government for the purpose of representing Northern Ireland since 1973". The existing first sentence of the second paragraph, which became the second sentence after Eckerslike's insertion read "During official events, the British government uses the Union flag which is the official flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland." (My emphases). What Mo ainm is now claiming is a revert that removes content, is not a revert as it doesn't remove any content. In fact, it is me removing a repetitive redundancy from the paragraph, as the very content and concept it conveys had just been given greater prominence, per the discussion on talk, by the addition of a new first sentence to the paragraph conveying the exact same information. I would argue that the relevant diffs in this case, that demonstrate no content was removed, but was switched around pursuant to a discussion are these [25]. That said, Mo ainm clearly feels there has been a revert here, and now he has indicated what he meant, so I will now self-revert in the interests of reducing tensions and furthering the on-going attempt to resolve this dispute. Done [26] Miles Creagh (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Miles Creagh

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Really? Of all the wars that have been fought in the name of a flag, this (edit) war is probably the lamest. Miles seems to have self reverted, and I don't see the sort of abuse that typically gets sanctioned here. I'm inclined to leave it as a "Don't do that again" and move on, unless someone provides substantial evidence of wrongdoing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With no new developments, I think we can mark this one as resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE sanction appeal regarding a 3 way topic ban between MarkBernstein, Thargor Orlando and DHeyward

The three-way mutual interaction bans between MarkBernstein, Thargor Orlando and DHeyward are hereby lifted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This topic ban originated from an ARCA, and three AE requests regarding GamerGate. It was poorly thought out (i.e. ThargorOrlando and I never had a dispute, rather we noted personal attacks by MarkBernstein. MarkBernstein viewed our ARCA and AE requests as personal attacks. Gamaliel imposed a 3-way topic ban with the apparent attempt to limit requests for sanction. Despite the wording, ThargorOrlandao and I never had a disagreement. Rather MarkBernstein was repeatedly brought to AE and Gamaliel sought to stop it. It's clear this topic ban did not stem the flood and MarkBernstein has since been topic banned. I have no interest in replying to direct and personal inquiries by MarkBernstein. Since then, despite numerous AE requests to sanction MarkBernstein by others, Gamaliel has insisted that his topic ban didn't apply. Yet he jumped in and rev-del'd a comment I made and supported a block when MarkBernstein complained. The Admins at AN disagreed strongly, undid the oversight and the block and chastised Gamaliel for bein too close to the topic.

The latest interpretation by email is even more confusing as it now allows comment at drama boards which I believed to be off-limits. This is a long history so I will provide diffs on request. My desire is to lift the ill-concieved topic ban. He can make as many comments as he likes about me. Diffs on request. -DHeyward (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: There are actually three separate DS imposed, not one big one. I appeal my own. If either of the other two parties wish to keep theirs in place, that is up to them but I don't oppose lifting all three. ThargorOrlando already appealed it immediately after it was imposed and I supported him (in Archives if you care to search) and I would presume that is still his desire. I cannot comprehend the moving target. It only causes confusion as to what and where I and others may comment and every editor interprets it differently. MarkBernstein's comment above about a direct question was exactly the conundrum faced by me as I weighed whether someone would interpret a reply or even his question as a violation. It's not even clear that Gamaliel would be able to offer an opinion on the sanction given his ArbCom imposed GG AE restrictions. There's nothing gained here by waiting except more drama. --DHeyward (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThargoOrlando's appeal [27]. --DHeyward (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AE request that led to the sanction[28] (note, the point was originally to stop AE sanction rquests). MarkBenstein opened the request claiming this edit was a personal attack so the sanction was imposed to stop frivolous enforcement actions. And only in wikiland would that morph into a restriction where we are allowed to file enforcement actions. --DHeyward (talk)

@Liz: The restriction on filing AE or any other kind of request was lifted in November 2015. I've not filed anything regarding MarkBernstein. I've not commented either on the many times MarkBernstein has been brought here by other parties except above when he received email reinterpretation. Considering I've been able to file requests for 6 months and haven't even commented shows both an iban or tban is unnecessary. In addition it did not slow down the AE requests filed against MarkBernstein so whatever its intent, it did not happen. MarkBernstein is now topic banned from GamerGate so I see no overlap at all. I believe I have only filed 1 AE request (it's a good read) regarding MarkBernstein and that was met with Gamaliel's topic ban well over a year ago when MarkBernstein filed a retaliatory request (one against Thargor Orlando and one against me). You can read the diffs above and the sanctions log to see that it was modified in November. Also, do you still consider yourself involved in GamerGate related matters per your RfA? If so, can you kindly move your statement to the statement section? --20:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: No. Liz, this is ArbCom DS Topic Ban listed under GamerGate discretionary sanctions[29]. Search for Thargor, note the modification. It is not an iban. This is why I am appealing at AE. Your confusion is exactly why it should be lifted. Read that log and you will see I can bring any action I choose as can MB. It's confusing and unenforceable. If you are "involved" regarding GamerGate discretionary sanctions, this is GamerGate discretionary sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: to clarify, it was a Topic Ban so that we could all contribute and discuss article edits. Both MarkBernstein and I can edit any article, discuss any content with each other, comment on any proposal, etc. I am Topic Banned from the topic of MarkBernstein, though, but with the exceptions (noted in the log and email in MarkBernstein section above) there doesn't seem to much of even a Topic Ban anymore and it is difficult to parse where the line is. It would be incorrect to change to an Iban as there never has been an interaction restriction, nor does there need to be. --DHeyward (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: See above, it is a Topic Ban. MarkBernstein and I can interact on any article or talk page we like. Second, the section you commented in is for "uninvolved admins". Feel free to move your comments to the regular statement area. If you cannot take administrative action because of involvement, your statement/opinion is in the wrong area as you are not "uninvolved". --DHeyward (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

Either convert the IB to a standard 2-way interaction ban between DHeyward and MarkBernstein (As DHeyward says, he and Thargor have not had conflict that justified it) or lift it altogether. As it stands its clearly been crafted and amended by Gamaliel to favour MarkBernstein as much as possible. The 'commenting at drama boards' stuff MB thinks is valid is completely voiding the point of an IB. Which is to prevent editors interacting at all. As it stands there is also a good case for lifting it entirely - as MB has been topic banned from GamerGate, and that was the only locus of dispute - it is unlikely to rear its head again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith, lifting or modifying an existing sanction only requires a clear consensus at the relevant noticeboard. It doesnt actually *require* the sanctioned editor to lodge an appeal first. If an Admin places a DS restriction and then rescinds it, it doesnt require the sanctioned editor to have appealed it. That part of ACDS is the process for the lodging of appeals by a sanctioned editor. If the consensus of uninvolved admins in a discussion here is to lift Thargor's interaction ban, You can go ahead and do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

Whatever the intentions behind these topic bans, it is clear that they have long outlived any usefulness they might once have had. I should not wish to dwell on the unfortunate genesis of these topic bans in two WP:POINTy noticeboard filings, but do consider that if we have now reached the point where that same editor "complies" with the topic ban by talking not about another editor but about their dog,[30][31] and is encouraged in such "compliance" by the sanctioning admin,[32] it might be time to remove these sanctions.
Recommend upholding this appeal. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Just a wee heads up that Thargor Orlando has not edited since December 2015, and has not edited Mainspace or Talkspace since March 2015. Their thoughts on the topic ban discussed, however, might be discerned from their statements in a previous appeal of the topic ban.[33] Hopefully this is of assistance. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Respectfully, commenting in a section reserved for uninvolved admins is "taking an admin action". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Please self-revert your latest comment, which is in violation of a topic ban. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

In my opinion this sanction ought to either be lifted or converted into a mutual interaction ban, which is easier to understand and enforce. Note to The Wordsmith: Thargor Orlando's last edit was in December 2015, so I think waiting for him to respond here may not work out. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

Is there an urgent reason to deal with this now now now? (What reason might that be?)

The administrator who designed and then modified the ban cannot comment here at present for compelling reasons that are known to the Arbitration Committee. His opinion would normally be sought; I am sure he will be happy to offer it when he is able.

I am not currently participating on-wiki in the Arbitration case Gamaliel and Others. I am not working on-wiki on Gamergate. In fact, you'll observe that, in recent weeks at Wikipedia, (a) I answered direct questions (like this one), (b) I wrote an informal note at AN titled You may all be barking up the wrong tree (which proved to be the case, by the way), and (c) I queried an editor of The Signpost.

Speaking of the walls being pairwise parallel, those who follow ArbCom closely may recall the phrase, "lowering their profile."

I happen to be fairly busy at the moment, writing a number of pieces on tight deadlines.

Just now, we have an awful lot of moving parts. Additional complications are likely to arise, some soon. This might not be a great time to invite further complexities.

So, I have no need just now to talk about DHeyward or Orlando on-wiki. I’m not doing anything on-wiki that DHeyward or Orlando would want to discuss, or could properly discuss even if they thought discussing it would be really swell. We have a complex and volatile situation with potentially serious consequences, involving any number of people and processes. My recommendation would call for a cautious approach. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. [34] MarkBernstein (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:: No, they won’t be bringing more traffic about MarkBernstein to AE because they don't don't need to. As Ryk72 attentively points out, I may not bring to your attention incontrovertible facts that are directly pertinent to your question, and to the issues discussed above. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Topic Ban Appeal

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

This frankly Byzantine sanction is clearly not doing much except confusing people who try to enforce a moving target. I would be okay with lifting it on all fronts, but I would first like to hear from MarkBernstein and Thargor Orlando regarding their opinions on the interaction ban, since this effects them too. I doubt Mark will object, since I don't believe he is interested in being continually dragged to AE due to a ban that nobody understands and is constantly being reinterpreted. I haven't seen anything from Thargor one way or the other. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send an email to Thargor then, but if he doesn't respond our ability is somewhat more limited. If I'm reading the DS policy correctly, only the affected editor may appeal their sanction, and it can't be done on someone else's behalf. If Mark and DHeyward both want it lifted, and there is a consensus of uninvolved admins, then I think the most we could do is remove two of the three legs, modifying it to a one-way interaction ban for Thargor. If anyone reads the relevant part of WP:ACDS differently then I'm open to discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem the problems that led to the restriction aren't as pressing now. Seeing how confusing it has been, lifting the full restriction is probably the best way to handle it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for other admin, Mark, but just as I stated for your benefit above, I would say that breaching the topic ban within an Arb case where lots of names are involved is different than on an article page, and I tend to cut a lot of slack when the context is within the purpose of that administrative board. This ties into the spirit being more important than the letter, and not every exception needs to be written down. We are allowed to use some common sense. How accurate he is doesn't matter, it only matters that it was within the context of the Arb case itself. Again, in my opinion, and again, pretty much the same as I said for you in another case regarding you, above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive167#DHeyward, the interaction ban was imposed out of exasperation by Gamaliel because of the frequent appearance of Gamergate-related enforcement requests and he stated that "none of you can open a new noticeboard thread or enforcement request about any of the others without the permission of an uninvolved administrator."

So, my question is will lifting this iban lead to fewer visits to AE (for possible ban violations) or more visits because you now can complain about each other? I'd support a mutual iban between Bernstein and Heyward unless they can agree to a iban on a voluntary basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, this is an appeal about an Iban, not a topic ban regarding Gamergate. In my RfA, I stated "if I pass this RfA, I would never take action in a subject in which I am involved" and I specified Gamergate as the only area covered by DS where I considered myself involved. But I don't believe expressing an opinion is taking an action. The context of that comment was a question from Brustopher about whether I would impose discretionary sanctions and I still would never impose DS regarding Gamergate-related articles. If my fellow admins feel differently and see my statements as taking an admin action, please let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing is an admin action, opining is an admin activity since only admin can, at least that is what I got out of the last Arb case on it, where I (unfortunately) was participating. (to compare, looking at deleted articles is an admin activity, but not an admin action as you aren't changing anything.) I see this as more of an interaction ban rather than topic ban, even though many involved have called it a topic ban. It did result from editing in GG. I think you closing or implementing or removing a sanction might be problematic, but don't see offering an opinion as a particular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would never close this discussion, impose or lift a discretionary sanctions ban involving Gamergate-related articles. Offering an opinion on this Iban which I think is neutral, in terms of not favoring either party, is the extent of my participation in this ban appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, it is an issue of nomenclature only. Bans about interacting with humans are generally iban, while bans about interacting with ideas are topic bans. Why it was originally worded that way, and drawn up that way, is unknown. Regardless, I've opined that removing any limits on interacting with these two humans is best, without affecting any topic bans on topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that these sanctions generate a lot more heat than light, and I wouldn't see any reason not to just remove them. Also, I don't have any objection to lifting the interaction ban on all three parties. While it's true we don't accept appeals by third parties, the individuals appealing here are parties to the sanction. One-way interaction bans are inevitably a bad idea, so I wouldn't want to see that remain as leftovers purely by chance as to who's active when an appeal is filed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Every uninvolved admin seems to think the ban should be lifted, so is it time to close this with that effect? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Tiptoethrutheminefield

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[35] "Volunteer Marek needs to pack up his own crap and stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war in. " <-- self explanatory
[36] Tiptoethroughtheminefield doubles down on apologetic personal attacks - discussing editors rather than content. "Volunteer Marek is misusing this talk page" - apparently attempting to discuss the issue on talk is now "misusing the talk page". This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and evidence of WP:NOTHERE.

Probably could find more evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the AA2 area but the above should be sufficient.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[37] Placed under 1RR (since expired) This also serves as notice of discretionary sanctions in this topic area.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

[38].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not quite sure what EtienneDolet is talking about. Apparently they object to me making edits to this article at all and think this is some kind of conspiracy against *them* despite the fact that this report has nothing to do with them. I made edits to the article because it was in the news, then I remembered about it when Jamala won the Eurovision contest and I followed some links. This appears to be a desperate attempt at deflecting the issue from Tiptoethrutheminefield's problematic behavior. I'll leave EtienneDolet's - who just jumped in to edit war on that article [39] - motives out of it, though it's not hard to guess them. I resent any charges, which are completely baseless and amount to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, that I have "unclean hands" (whatever that is suppose to mean) or that I'm pushing "pro-Azeri POV" which is ridiculous and it only reveals EtienneDolet's own biased WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss content (I have discussed it on talk page - EtienneDolet and Tiptoethroughtheminefield, aside from their personal attack above, have not) but just to make it clear the two paragraphs I removed (I guess that's "mass deletions") are obviously highly POV, and sourced to non-reliable sources like breitbart news, a bunch of primary sources from the involved governments and a few others non-reliable sources. Then a couple actually reliable sources are included to source trivial or irrelevant facts to make it look legit. It's a classic POV pushing tactic.

And yes, like many topic areas which have been placed under discretionary sanctions due to nationalistic WP:BATTLEGROUND this one too has its share of dedicated tag teams.

@User:The_Wordsmith - in the past I've let stuff like this slide. Then it just build up and eventually ended up being a huge mess. And at that point administrators and arbcoms were like "why didn't you bring it to WP:AE earlier?". Well, here I am bringing it to WP:AE earlier. Additionally keep in mind that User:Tiptoethroughtheminefiled has been sanctioned, with good cause, in this topic area.

ADD: another diff to support that Tiptoethroughthebattlefield is just not getting it. A reasonable user, interested in compromise and working towards a neutral article would have at this point struck the offending personal attack and said "ok sorry, I went to far, let's discuss the issue". Unfortunately this is NOT what Tiptoethroughthebattlefield has done, instead they've just flung around more weird accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, after a comment like that *how exactly* are we suppose to have a constructive discussion about the issue at hand? Putting aside for the moment the fact that the comment clearly indicates Tiptoethroughtheminefield is not interested in such, it also shuts down discussion with others. And of course the fact that s/he is not only defending but doubling down on the personal attacks in their comment here only makes it more problematic. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning Tiptoethrutheminefield

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

Volunteer Marek drives by an article he has never edited before, in a field he has never (or very rarely) edited before, and starts deleting VERY large quantities of referenced content [41] without prior discussion, content he MUST have known would constitute a contentious deletion. When reverted, he refers to a talk page post he's made in a dead and settled discussion thread (his post is made one month after the last post there [42]), that is half way up the talk page and is about an entirely different subject, to allege that a lack of "consensus" permits all of this deletion, and he deletes it all again [43]. This is a misuse of the talk page (pointing out that misuse and suggesting it should stop is a "personal attack" according to VM). When others point out that the deleted content had numerous sources VM then goes on an I-don't-like-it tirade against all the sources. Without presenting any argument or evidence, he asserts this source is not "reliable", that source is not "reliable", that one too is not "reliable" - all this is referring to well known and well used sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Eurasianet, etc. And he asserts that media sources based in Armenia or Azerbaijan are "primary sources", when they clearly are not. When this is questioned his assertions get even wilder, now the sources are all "junk", are all "crap" [44]. However, the only "crap" I saw on display was in the arguments coming from Volunteer Marek, and I think for me to have reused his use of the word "crap", and asked him to leave with it, is a fair comment to have made under the circumstances. If he wants to return with proper arguments, and present those arguments in a reasonable way, without edit warring, then he is welcome and I will engage with him. No other editor who has worked on the article has advocated such a massive deletion of content, prior discussion about it been mostly about what appropriate wording to use. I suspect the only reason Volunteer Marek came to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is that he was following Étienne Dolet around to cause harassment, after having had several disagreements with that editor on Syrian and Ukrainian and Putin-related articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek has also now added a number of bad faith assertions and false assertions. He made three attempts at mass deletion of content on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Three different editors restored the content - none of those editors was me! My supposed "sanction", 1RR, long expired, was a ludicrous sanction imposed by Sandstein, ludicrous because it was imposed without me having done any reverting (far from making more that one revert a day, I was not even making one revert a week in the article the case concerned). It was imposed simply to match the sanction imposed on another editor who was doing the reverting. This will be on Sandstein's talk page for that time, if someone wishes to dig it up. Of course VM has already dug it up - or has his claim that my sanction was imposed "with good cause" got the same lack of evidence as his "crap" sources claim? I doubt that I have ever done any more than one revert a day on any AA2 article, ever, so I demand he explain why he knows that my 1RR sanction was imposed "with good cause". I should have appealed it at the time, to avoid just this situation - an unscrupulous bullying editor digging up old history to cast unfounded aspersions - but since abiding by the sanction was causing me no difficulty whatsoever and involved no change to my editing, I let it go. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek has now described the entire article as "utter garbage" [45] - is calling the work of numerous editors over several months "utter garbage" acceptable? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EtienneDolet

The filer of this report appears to have unclean hands. Volunteer Marek, who has never edited an AA2 article, only did so to revert an edit of mine after the whole feud at Putin subsided in what seems to be classic WP:HOUND-like behavior. He has been pushing some strange pro-Azeri POV at that article ever since. A month later, Marek gets reverted by me at this article, and responds 10 minutes later by making a massive deletion of material concerning human rights violations against Armenians here. In other words, Marek's two instances of editing at this article was either to revert me or bait me to revert him. Since then, for the past three days, Marek has made 2 reverts ([46][47]) to maintain his deletion of an entire section consisting of 11,000+ characters and 30+ sources/reports while edit-warring over several users in this 1RR article. That's one revert every 24 hours. One can only assume that there's some WP:GAMING going on. As for Tiptoe's comment, I don't know if that is necessarily an AA2 issue in and of itself. Perhaps WP:ANI would be a better venue to handle a single remark like that. As for his editing pattern, I'd say that his edits are rather productive and neutral. He'll go so far as to confront Armenian POV here, Azerbaijani POV here, and Turkish POV there. That's quite a rarity in the AA2 these days. Hence the main reason why I think he's a good asset to the topic area. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OptimusView

While the article is under 1RR rule, Volunteer Marek already made 3 reverts [48][49][50] during the last 4 days, deleting a whole section with very dubious and disaffected comments. Several users asked him to stop editwarring, but no result. OptimusView (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

It is wrong that lower civility standards should apply to discussions in nationalism-related areas. To the contrary, higher standards must apply. It is precisely the personal attacks of the kind provided above (and these comments are undoubtely directed at a contributor) that makes editing in such subject areas unbearable. If someone can not edit politely in difficult subject areas, s/he should not edit in such areas. Very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even comments like that ("there's no need to attack [subject of the page] over and over" in response to question "what exactly was wrong in my edit?") is not acceptable on article talk page. Yes, such comments are rather common and should be generally ignored. That is exactly what many people, including VM normally do. However, if someone's patience was exhausted, and the matter was brought to WP:AE, this should be properly addressed, not ignored. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoe. You said to VM: "stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war". What "cart blanche permit" do you mean? I saw you making similar statements on a number of occasions. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me to teach you Wikipedia's history. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have a slightest idea why do you think he is protected by admins. I thought he is simply another contributor, just like you or me. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. I saw that VM recently submitted a 3RRNB report about an obvious 3RR violation, and a user he reported continued edit warring during standing 3RR request about him. But that was left without action. I think you should apologize for your comment and never do it again because you can not support your accusations by anything. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kingsindian

It is almost impossible to avoid this mild level of hostility and language in nationalist areas. I suggest closing with no action. On the content matter, I agree with Volunteer Marek's position - a lot of the content is junk and should be deleted. However, the local consensus is for inclusion. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to get consensus to delete junk in such areas. That's just the way it is. I suggest an RfC to get more people looking at the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by username

Result concerning Tiptoethrutheminefield

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Major points for brevity, but a single rude remark is the only evidence? Given the usual bile with discussions in nationalism-related areas, this seems downright mild and not really what AE is for. Unless there's more evidence or more context I'd be inclined to close this with warnings all around. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsindian probably sums it up best above, so I won't repeat it, but will add that VM's hands are far from clean here. I suggest closing with a simple warning for both parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripWire

Withdrawn by filing party. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning TripWire

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ArghyaIndian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

The subject is a disruptive nationalist, tendentious editor and a POV-warrior. This user is recently got off a topic ban this year. And has been warned many times, not to jump right back into the kind of edits and behavior which led to his ban in the first place. [51], [52].

Note; previously reported right here at WP:AE for Edit warring and WP:GAMING in April, 2016 [53]. Note closing admin's admonishment; "Thus far I am disinclined to sanction TripWire. I see a lot of disagreement and somewhat heated rhetoric on the locus of dispute, but nothing so egregious as to warrant a sanction."

On Balochistan conflict

EDIT WARRING, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GAMING to have consensus; 22:14, 7 May 2016, 22:08, 8 May 2016, 22:17, 8 May 2016, not only he took the 3RR rule right to the limit, but also violated WP:BLP and called a living person a terrorist and Baloch National Front as Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of BNF.

Continues to WP:EDITWAR (along nationalist lines) and delete sourced contents (that he doesn't like).

16:33, 10 May 2016, 18:00, 10 May 2016, gets reverted again [54], continues WP:EDITWAR 19:32, 10 May 2016. Again took the WP:3RR rule right to the limit.

On Talk:Balochistan conflict

Conitnues to call a living person a terrorist and BMF a terrorist organisation [55], [56] and other involved editors as Indian POV pushers [57], [58] contents as Indian propaganda [59], etc [60]. Even leaving WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a nationalist and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.

WP:NPA, WP:SOAP violation and use of very hostile language, WP:BATTLE [61].

[62] "So you agree that you are just here to push your/Indian POV into a Pakistan related article? BTW, the info/POV you are trying to push is from a woman who belongs to BSO-Azad - a terrorist organization. I doubt Wikipedia is a propaganda mouthpiece of terrorists organizations. More [63], But you are expected to push Indian propaganda instead...

Again calls Karima baloch a terrorist and using very hostile language. read propaganda websites of these terrorist organizations and their supporter states. That's precisely all that matters. And as such, she has no place at WP. Sorry, but you need to find a better terrorist.

Many editors asking him to stop and told him to adhere to WP:NPOV [64], [65] [66] but he ignored them and continue uttering heavy nationalistic words Thanks for confirming that you indeed want to push Indian POV in the article..... what intrest India has in Balochistan..... we can add the Indian POV while also mentioning what stakes India has in Balochistan i.e. state soponsored terrorism.

Exhausting other editor's patience [67], [68].

Same edit warring, and WP:NPA on other pages. Balochistan, on TP [69] "First, your usage of PoK instead of Pak administered Kashmir confirms that have a POV and a bias...."].

Edit warring, WP:3RR, and WP:NPA on Kulbhushan Yadav and on Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav, attacking other editors and exhausting their patence. Please read this statement by Nuro Dragonfly [70] to get a better understanding, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and etc ARBIPA pages.

On 1971 Bangladesh genocide, right after the protection expired, sock IP reinstated POV version [71], an uninvolved editor Volunteer Marek restored NPOV version that was protected by the administrator [72], TripWire made back to back two reverts [73], got reverted again [74], reverted again [75] and got reverted again [76]. TripWire sudden edit warring led EdJohnston to full protect the page.

Note; TripWire and Freeatlast persistent Edit warring and WP:GAMING led administrators to full protect Balochistan conflict, Balochistan and twice- Kulbhushan Yadav articles. And It is highly likely, that after the protection expires, they will again WP:EDITWAR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned from all "edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months".[77]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Just came off a topic ban this year.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't see how one can deal with such user after they create such a toxic environment. it's time for a ARBIPA topic ban at the very least. @The WordSmith, If you think I should withdraw this request then I will. However, I have only provided edit diffs from 8 May and as latest as of 2-3 days ago. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[78]

Withdrawn and 'My apologies! --ArghyaIndian (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning TripWire

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by TripWire

All diffs are more than 2/3 weeks old, as old as from 26 April, hence stale. Digging up the entire history of an editor and piecing together random edits/reverts while presenting them as if they violated WP:XYZ, WP:123, WP:$%@ etc is not what AE is for.

Calling a person (not a WP user nor a subject of an article - just some random person) on a Talk-page a terrorist is not a violation of BLP. The person in question is non-notable and belongs to Baloch Students Organization, which WP explains as; "is a designated terrorist organization that campaigns for the independence of Pakistan's Balochistan Province."

All of my reverts/edits were to revert socks, Freedom Mouse (now banned as a sock) in particular.

This report is part of the series of reports to harass (particular kind of) editors - report innocent editors repeatedly, throw them in the limelight, frustrate the Admins, atleast one of them is going to take some action.

Most diffs are from here/original thread. Please go through it see how the report has been spiced up.

As regards the rhetorics of "just got off topic-ban"; Sir, it's been a year now since that happened. Just copy/pasting the reply I gave when I was subjected to similar harassment in the past (hatting it myself):

Reply to rhetorics.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I didn't come off topic just this year. I was banned on 3 July 2015 which ended on 4 January 2016 (4 months from now). I remained semi-active on Wiki during my topic-ban avoiding the topics I was banned from. When my ban ended, I still didnt start editing the pages I was banned from immediately, instead participated on these topics from 20 February 2016 (1 month 12 days after the ban ended). I used this 1 month to develop more understanding of polices and didnt just jump back to editing. Even then too my first edit after my topic-ban ended was reverting vandalism - ‎MBlaze Lightning had POVed against longstanding consensus (see my edit-summary).

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

The request should be declined as stale. I went through almost all the diffs, i did not find a single diff younger than a week. Also, please take a note that this request might have been inspired by a couple of recent topic bans e.g. User:Towns Hill and User:FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TopGun

I'm here as I watch TW's talkpage. The report is blatantly frivolous and full of stale diffs. From what I understand, it is an attempt to resolve disputes by removing users from the topic area which is not how wikipedia works. You have to go through the DR process. I also noticed that Arghya was warned just above in another AE report. The fact that he filed this report inspite of that definitely calls for a block of appropriate length that would deter any future hounding of such sort. The offer of withdrawal of this report by the filer seems be looking for a way to avoid WP:BOOMERANG only after he saw it coming where as he was wasting every one's time with lengthy replies in the above AE report(s) and even here till now when he had the WP:ROPE. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable on wikipedia. TripWire, I would really like to note that you dont need to respond with such long statements... admins are generally experienced enough users to get your point if you simply list your arguments (as you finally did in your update statement). I also hope you will avoid discussing the users in future and focus on content instead, unlike those diffs from April (although stale) as I noticed RegentsPark recently applied restrictions to the Kashmir conflict topics for all users, esp. wrt discussion on users. I am also noting this here as a record so that admins can keep a check on editors who bring ethnic claims about other editors in future edits instead of discussing content which is categorically mentioned in the restriction. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. ArghyaIndian blanked the report which I have reverted. If you want to withdraw, please leave a comment... but let the admins deal with whether they have to hat the report or take some action. Blanking does not guarantee that WP:BOOMERANG wont be opted by an admin anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TripWire

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I'm inclined to dismiss this case as frivolous and issue a short block to deter future filings like this. If anyone thinks I should not then please speak up. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The Wordsmith. Hunting through the sea of diffs above it is hard to find anything recent. I would encourage TripWire to stop accusing editors of pushing a POV but there is nothing recent here that is actionable. A short boomerang block to deter frivolous filing is warranted. Or, perhaps a restriction against filing AE actions since the user has a clean block log. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 283: / Line 283: @@
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
 *Major points for brevity, but a single rude remark is the only evidence? Given the usual bile with discussions in nationalism-related areas, this seems downright mild and not really what AE is for. Unless there's more evidence or more context I'd be inclined to close this with warnings all around. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 14:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
+*{{u|Kingsindian}} probably sums it up best above, so I won't repeat it, but will add that VM's hands are far from clean here.  I suggest closing with a simple warning for both parties.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 16:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 ==TripWire==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards